I remember those Conversion Factors from a VERY old copy of SI10 (I think it was still called IEEE-268) as well as from NIST SP811, Appendix B, where they are nearly half the document.
________________________________ From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:08 PM Subject: [USMA:54570] Re: Units and ASTM John, Thanks for the reminder. For years, I participated as a member of ASTM-Committee E43, in the drafting of the document which became ANSI SI10. In fact, the appendix of SI10, dealing with “Conversion Factors," was copied, with permission, from NASA SP-7012 which I wrote in 1964 when I was employed at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Presently, I prefer thinking of these Conversion Factors as expressions of the *definitions* of units of measurement from outside the SI. (e.g. dyne, erg and other cgs units as well as US customary or inch-pound units) Eugene A. (Gene) Mechtly. On Jan 8, 2015, at 6:23 AM, John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: ANSI does not, itself, develop standards. It accredits standards developing organizations, and those organizations may submit their standards as proposed ANSI standards. ASTM is such an organization. Note as an example that ANSI SI10 is jointly developed by IEEE and ASTM (at one time they each issued such a standard, then collaborated). > > >From an ANSI FAQ: >http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/faqs/faqs.aspx?menuid=1 >Q: Does ANSI develop standards? >A: ANSI establishes the consensus procedures that are the basis for the >development of American National Standards. We then accredit standards >developing organizations that operate in accordance with these procedures, and >approve their draft standards provided they are developed via this process. > > >Q: If ANSI doesn’t create standards, who does? >A: ANSI accredits standards developers to create standards. Accreditation is >defined as the procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal >recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. >(As defined in ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004) >Presently, there are more than 220 ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers >including organizations like ASTM International, Underwriters Laboratories, >Inc., NFPA International, ASME International, ASHRAE, CSA America, Inc. and >NSF International. >Accreditation ensures adherence to ANSI's cardinal principles. ANSI-Accredited >Standards Developers develop American National Standards in many different >areas. ANSI supplies standards developers with effective procedures and >management services to ensure efficient use of their time and financial >resources, and promotes the timely development of standards. ANSI, in >cooperation with these standards developers identifies the need for a >standard, sets priorities for its completion, then assures that all impacted >stakeholders have an opportunity to participate. Audits oversee the integrity >of the ANSI process, regularly ensuring adherence to the ANSI procedures and >safeguarding the value of the ANS designation. > > >A 36 page pdf of ANSI currently accredited standards developing organizations. >http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/ANSI%20Accredited%20Standards%20Developers/JAN15ASD_basic.pdf > > > > >________________________________ > From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu> >To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> >Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:22 PM >Subject: [USMA:54567] Re: Units and ASTM > > > >Martin, > > >I have no idea which of the ASTM standards are also ANSI standards, and might >also be recognized by the ISO. > > >It would be useful if there were an index of these various standards to >facilitate searching by subject. > > >At least, I believe it is safe to say that increasing numbers of these global >standards are being written in SI Units of Measurement. > > >Gene Mechtly. > > >On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >Hi Gene >> >>Part of the problem is that ISO recognises ANSI, not ASTM as the official US >>member. >> >>For the record, ISO, BSI and DIN are not Government bodies, they are private >>organisations, but have a status within the field of standards similar to >>that of the Olympic movement in sport. In much the same way the IOC only >>recognises one body representing the US. The Metre Convention organisations >>are totally different, they are inter-government bodies and senior members >>have diplomatic (or quasi-diplomatic) status in France (unless they are >>French citizens) in much the same way that senior members of the UN staff >>have diplomatic or quasi-diplomatic status in New York (unless they are US >>citizens) >> >>Thus, if any ASTMS standards are to be adopted by ISO, ASTMS needs to work >>with ANSI (or get ANSI to sponsor them). >> >>From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of >>mechtly, eugene a >>Sent: 07 January 2015 15:50 >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Cc: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:54562] Re: Units and ASTM >> >>Martin, >> >>Standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials >>(ASTM-International) have historically been written by groups in the private >>sectors of the USA, which are interested in a particular material or subject. >> Membership and participation in ASTM have become more global in recent years. >> >>For many years in the past, ASTM has complained that countries in Europe are >>reluctant to adopt ASTM Standards, preferring instead to adopt >>similar standards which were developed in Europe by *official* organizations, >>sponsored by government(s) e.g. DIN, ISO. >> >>Access to hundreds of documents on both sides of the Atlantic, would be >>necessary to assess the current balance of adoptions of standards developed >>by ASTM vs standards developed in Europe. Are they beginning to converge to >>more universal global standards? Who knows! >> >>Gene Mechtly. >> >> >> >>On Jan 6, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>Are many ASTM standards are adopted by ISO? I know that many, if not most ISO >>standards started life as a national standard. >> >>From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of >>mechtly, eugene a >>Sent: 06 January 2015 19:15 >>To: U.S. Metric Association >>Cc: U.S. Metric Association >>Subject: [USMA:54559] Re: Units and ASTM >> >>Stan, >> >>The practice that I notice most in “Standardization News (SN)” is the *almost >>total absence* of units of measurement of any kind, absence of SI Units and >>absence of units from outside the SI as well, except in some of the paid >>adverting in SN which does seems to favor metric units. >> >>In the hundreds of ASTM Standards, themselves, it may be true that they >>“adhere best to the metric units commitment", but that is not evident is SN. >>Even still as a member of ASTM-Committee 43 on SI, I do continue to receive >>complimentary copies of SN, but, unfortunately, we do not have unrestricted >>access to the ASTM library of standards to observe the extent of adoption of >>SI. What is your count of standards in SI vs. those written outside the SI? >> >>Gene Mechtly. >> >> >> >>On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Stanislav Jakuba <jakub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>ASTM International, known until 2001 as the American Society for Testing and >>Materials (ASTM), is an international standards organization that develops >>and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of >>materials, products, systems, and services. The organization is headquarters >>is in West Conshohocken, PA. >>ASTM, founded in 1898 as the American Section of the International >>Association for Testing and Materials, predates other standards organizations >>such as BSI (1901), DIN (1917), ANSI (1918) and AFNOR (1926). >>That much Wikipedia. For us it is important to know that ASTM is the U.S. >>standards developing organization (unlike ANSI) and one of the largest, and >>that it adheres best to the metric units commitment. The reason that I write >>about it now is that I noticed a deviation from their policy of "metric units >>first." >>For a while the flagship publication, the Standardization News, published >>data with units in the reversed order. Contacting ASTM, I was informed that >>it was a mistake and that "we will do that, except for quotations or a >>special case (I think sieves is one)." >>A good news for 2015. >>Stan Jakuba > > >
